Donald Trump

Billy86 · 14-08-2016 5:46pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Does anyone hear a shrieking frog while reading those Tweets?

I'm waiting on the "liberal/democrat bias!!" part, from someone clearly trying as hard as they possibly can to ignore the fact that the two least likely to say something completely false or an outright lie are Republicans (Ryan and Jeb Bush), as are 3 of the 4 people most likely to make a fully 'true' statement (Kasich, followed by Clinton, Rand Paul and somewhat shockingly, Palin).

There's a solid argument to be made in their, but they have openly abandoned facts and reality over the last several years and it looks like they're on their way to throwing away what should have been in incredibly winnable election as a result. Kasich would have good as had the election sewn up already in my opinion - decent Quora thread on What do Ohio Democrats Think of John Kasich?

Billy86 · 14-08-2016 5:56pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Snopes gets quiet a lot but I am curious how much of an ideological bias there is to the site, I'm not saying that they outright lie but reading that was interesting.

The founders are a husband and wife, she is Canadian while he is an independent and former Republican. They have actually had checks run on them, too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com

FactCheck reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases. FactCheck noted that Barbara Mikkelson was a Canadian citizen (and thus unable to vote in US elections) and David Mikkelson was an independent who was once registered as a Republican. "You'd be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people," David Mikkelson told them.[22][23] In 2012, The Florida Times-Union reported that About.com's urban legends researcher found a "consistent effort to provide even-handed analyses" and that Snopes' cited sources and numerous reputable analyses of its content confirm its accuracy.

Also there is an important part missing off your first quote... "As for the claim that Hillary Clinton "knew the defendant was guilty," she couldn't possibly have known that unless she were present when the incident in question occurred. Even if she surmised that the defendant was likely guilty based upon the evidence and/or his statements, she was obliged to operate under the rules of the U.S. legal system, which assume the accused to be innocent until proved guilty."

RDM_83 again · 14-08-2016 5:59pm

B0jangles wrote: »

I take your point about Snopes, but realistically so many people want to be able to say that Snopes is totally biased in one way or another that it would be completely self-destructive of them to actually show any overt bias. A single provable instance of them doing so would probably be the end of them.

Its not a total bias, but then most things people say are totally biased aren't, but when they present stuff in that manner it definitely doesn't make it seem its the strictly neutral source of information it portrays its self as.
Did a quick redditing there and it appears that snopes is perceived to have bias about a number of things.
I mean if this is apparently one of the main content creators twitter feeds your damn right I am going to be very skeptical about anything on Snopes that fits into the culture wars (and Donald vs Hillary is definitely part of that).

She also wrote the article we just linked too, post-truth politics isn't just an issue for the Right the Left engages in it too.

http://archive.is/Zd5bm

B0jangles · 14-08-2016 6:11pm

I'm not quite sure what that tweet was supposed to illustrate? As far as understand it, she mocked a gamergater with a silly picture. How does that undermine her work for Snopes? All of us have our own biases but if your job involves creating accurate, unbiased summations then you just have to learn to leave your biases at home.

RDM_83 again · 14-08-2016 6:12pm

Billy86 wrote: »

The founders are a husband and wife, she is Canadian while he is an independent and former Republican. They have actually had checks run on them, too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com

Also there is an important part missing off your first quote... "As for the claim that Hillary Clinton "knew the defendant was guilty," she couldn't possibly have known that unless she were present when the incident in question occurred. Even if she surmised that the defendant was likely guilty based upon the evidence and/or his statements, she was obliged to operate under the rules of the U.S. legal system, which assume the accused to be innocent until proved guilty."

1- The person who wrote the article isn't part of that husband and wife team, and if you follow the link I just gave would definitely appear to be strongly politicized and is American AFAIK
For example as pointed out on a different site following the normal snopes rules an article like this would be ruled False, however the perception is, that as its damaging to Republicans its been left unresolved
http://www.snopes.com/gop-delayed-iran-prisoner-release-election/

2- What you quoted doesn't change the way the article has presented the material, if she believed in his guilt strongly enough to make it change her mind on the use of the polygraph its pretty clear that she had reasonable grounds to believe his guilt

Renegade Mechanic · 14-08-2016 6:14pm

Billy86 wrote: »

Yeah, about those two points...

Like you said, I'm a complete waste of your time. I know a con when I see one.

Does Donald Trump support the TPPI like Hillary?

B0jangles · 14-08-2016 6:20pm

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Does Donald Trump support the TPPI like Hillary?

I've just been doing a little reading around on that very topic and as far as I can gather he is moderately opposed to it, largely because he doesn't actually know what it is - he thinks China is a part of it. (It isn't)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/12/donald-trump/trump-says-china-will-take-advantage-trans-pacific/

"The TPP is horrible deal," Trump said. "It's a deal that was designed for China to come in, as they always do, through the back door and totally take advantage of everyone."
"If you look at the way China and India and almost everybody takes advantage of the United States -- China in particular, because they're so good. It's the No. 1 abuser of this country," Trump said. "And if you look at the way they take advantage, it's through currency manipulation. It's not even discussed in the almost 6,000-page agreement."
There’s just one problem with Trump’s rant on China, as Sen. Rand Paul emphatically pointed out at the debate: China isn’t actually a part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Billy86 · 14-08-2016 6:22pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

1- The person who wrote the article isn't part of that husband and wife team, and if you follow the link I just gave would definitely appear to be strongly politicized and is American AFAIK
For example as pointed out on a different site following the normal snopes rules an article like this would be ruled False, however the perception is, that as its damaging to Republicans its been left unresolved
http://www.snopes.com/gop-delayed-iran-prisoner-release-election/

2- What you quoted doesn't change the way the article has presented the material, if she believed in his guilt strongly enough to make it change her mind on the use of the polygraph its pretty clear that she had reasonable grounds to believe his guilt

1. The husband/wife team own the website though, would have hired her, and would stand to lose their website's credibility if she were biased. It makes absolutely no sense for them to have someone putting biased info on their website. And that is why have held up to external checks.

2. It absolutely does change it, because as it states she could not have 'known' he was guilty, and even if she had strong suspicions she could not have acted on them due to her role - innocent until proven guilty.

RDM_83 again · 14-08-2016 6:22pm

B0jangles wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what that tweet was supposed to illustrate? As far as understand it, she mocked a gamergater with a silly picture. How does that undermine her work for Snopes? All of us have our own biases but if your job involves creating accurate, unbiased summations then you just have to learn to leave your biases at home.

She has apparent form for not leaving her biases at home though with her work at snopes.
Take a look at this thread where she is arguing with a Daily Beast writer, she literally says that the New York Times isn't a valid source

yet takes one of the people involved statements as gospel.

http://archive.is/z1uxD

Maybe she is an outlier on the site but portraying Snopes as being two apolitical Canadians isn't accurate anymore.
If it was a right wing opinion slanting stuff this way it would definitely get called out by the posters here but because its tilting left it seems to be ignored

Edit: Billy86 read the Twitter exchange I just linked too, does it read like somebody thats interested in a accurate representation of the issues? or does it seem like they have form for bring their personal opinions to their job at snopes for other culture wars type issues

Calina · 14-08-2016 6:24pm

B0jangles wrote: »

I've just been doing a little reading around on that very topic and as far as I can gather he is moderately opposed to it, largely because he doesn't actually know what it is - he thinks China is a part of it. (It isn't)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/12/donald-trump/trump-says-china-will-take-advantage-trans-pacific/

TPP is the Transpacific Partnership. It does not currently include China as far as I know but I would be surprised were that to remain the case.

TTIP is the partnership between the EU and the US although it's a long way from being close to reality yet I suspect.

Precision is kind of useful with respect to these two partnership deals.

B0jangles · 14-08-2016 6:25pm

What is the context for that last exchange?

RDM_83 again · 14-08-2016 6:28pm

B0jangles wrote: »

What is the context for that last exchange?

This event, http://archive.is/BUTIE

The Daily Beast isn't exactly FOX NEWS so if they are calling her out on bias its pretty inditing.

B0jangles · 14-08-2016 6:30pm

Calina wrote: »

TPP is the Transpacific Partnership. It does not currently include China as far as I know but I would be surprised were that to remain the case.

TTIP is the partnership between the EU and the US although it's a long way from being close to reality yet I suspect.

Precision is kind of useful with respect to these two partnership deals.

Apologies, I misread the original post (the second calls it TTPI btw) I have not been able to find any decent source of information about Mr. Trump's opinion on TTIP, does he have one?

Billy86 · 14-08-2016 6:33pm

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Does Donald Trump support the TPPI like Hillary?

Donald Trump supports it. Clinton doesn't. See making up things to suit your agenda is nice and easy, isn't it? Don't let facts get in the way, after all.

Meanwhile, Clinton openly come out against the TPP as early in the race as last October. Meanwhile, Donald 'bring jobs home' Trump continues to outsource lots of his brands and thousands and thousands of his workers from outside the US.

B0jangles · 14-08-2016 6:36pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

This event, http://archive.is/BUTIE

The Daily Beast isn't exactly FOX NEWS so if they are calling her out on bias its pretty inditing.

It all sounds pretty nebulous to me - they say they interviewed students but what did those students say? If they said they were offered counselling by the college then that's a blow against Snopes, if they said they heard people were being offered counselling then that's just hearsay and a blow against the Daily Beast. Either way its a pretty silly non-story.

RDM_83 again · 14-08-2016 6:50pm

B0jangles wrote: »

It all sounds pretty nebulous to me - they say they interviewed students but what did those students say? If they said they were offered counselling by the college then that's a blow against Snopes, if they said they heard people were being offered counselling then that's just hearsay and a blow against the Daily Beast. Either way its a pretty silly non-story.

Its not much of a story alright in terms of what actually happened but her response about sources is revealing, its not simply about the counseling, in her article for Snopes she labels
"Students were afraid or traumatized" as False

This is why the Daily Beast is annoyed, they have on the record interviews where students state “I legitimately feared for my life,” in the Twitter exchange thats why the guy calls her out too fact check and about looking at sources.

If this isn't direct evidence of dishonesty on her part to suit a socio-political ideology I don't know what would convince people.

Maybe the rest of Snopes isn't that bad but considering she wrote the article linked to in the thread I don't think its safe to say her pieces are unbiased and accurate.

If the Anti-Trump crowd are concerned about honesty we should call out bias and political motivated dishonesty where ever it occurs not just when the Right does it

B0jangles · 14-08-2016 6:57pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Its not much of a story alright in terms of what actually happened but her response about sources is revealing, its not simply about the counseling, in her article for Snopes she labels
"Students were afraid or traumatized" as False

This is why the Daily Beast is annoyed, they have on the record interviews where students state “I legitimately feared for my life,” in the Twitter exchange thats why the guy calls her out too fact check and about looking at sources.

If this isn't direct evidence of dishonesty on her part to suit a socio-political ideology I don't know what would convince people.

Maybe the rest of Snopes isn't that bad but considering she wrote the article linked to in the thread I don't think its safe to say her pieces are unbiased and accurate.

If the Anti-Trump crowd are concerned about honesty we should call out bias and political motivated dishonesty where ever it occurs not just when the Right does it

Just read the two pieces and I see where your coming from - saying "students were afraid" was false is directly contradicted by the quote from Paula Camila Alarcon. Poor work on Snopes part, no question.

RDM_83 again · 14-08-2016 7:08pm

B0jangles wrote: »

Just read the two pieces and I see where your coming from - saying "students were afraid" was false is directly contradicted by the quote from Paula Camila Alarcon. Poor work on Snopes part, no question.

The fact she is still writing for them calls into question this line of thinking

Billy86 wrote: »

1. The husband/wife team own the website though, would have hired her, and would stand to lose their website's credibility if she were biased. It makes absolutely no sense for them to have someone putting biased info on their website. And that is why have held up to external checks.

She is still very active on the site, maybe she got disciplined internally and told to improve her standard but we don't know that, the external checks on snopes accuracy were from a time before the current "culture wars" so aren't that relevant in a different environment and expanded site with more writers.

Billy86 · 14-08-2016 7:21pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

She has apparent form for not leaving her biases at home though with her work at snopes.
Take a look at this thread where she is arguing with a Daily Beast writer, she literally says that the New York Times isn't a valid source yet takes one of the people involved statements as gospel.

http://archive.is/z1uxD

Maybe she is an outlier on the site but portraying Snopes as being two apolitical Canadians isn't accurate anymore.
If it was a right wing opinion slanting stuff this way it would definitely get called out by the posters here but because its tilting left it seems to be ignored

Edit: Billy86 read the Twitter exchange I just linked too, does it read like somebody thats interested in a accurate representation of the issues? or does it seem like they have form for bring their personal opinions to their job at snopes for other culture wars type issues

I'm reading it and I'm a bit confused as to what point you are trying to make.

1. She doesn't appear to saying that at all about he NYT's credibility, either I missed something or the Ben Collins lad brought up the NYT as a complete non sequitor - they are not mentioned anywhere in the original Snopes article, nor in the Daily Beast one, nor in the Emory one.

2. The NYT leans to the left, just as NBC leans to the right. If she is saying it is invalid as a source, then she must have a right-leaning/right-wing bias. This doesn't fit your point at all?

3. She takes the person involved's statement as gospel because the article was in relation to that very person involved and their fellow students/protesters. It would seem pretty normal to verify something by going to the person it was attributed to, in order to do so. If I tell you "B0jangles told me such-and-such" it is logical for you to attempt to verify that by going and asking him "did you tell b0jangles such-and-such" rather than just take my word for it, is it not?

4. I'm not sure if you have read the full exchange, but you can here - https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Akimlacapria%20%40oneunderscore__%20since%3A2016-03-01%20until%3A2016-03-31&src=typd&lang=en . It's important because just before where your screenshot starts should clear up some of the confusion re. sources, see the "telephone" comments.

5. Snopes founders' are not apolitical, as they are likely interested in politics to set up such a site; the husband (now independent) used to be a Republican after all so it would be tricky for him to be apolitical. As I already pointed out, they have been checked by their competitors like About.com and FactCheck and have been found to be free from bias. It's pretty much only the far right calling them biased, which should hint at something...

B0jangles · 14-08-2016 7:21pm

So I suppose the answer to this is to check a fact on Snopes as a start, then do some extra checks of your own to verify. Not sure what is meant by 'culture wars' but I'm not really au fait with all the latest internet labels going around.

Can we agree that direct quotes from Mr. Trumps twitter account and from his recorded speeches and statements suggest that he is completely out of his depth when it comes to actual politics?

RDM_83 again · 14-08-2016 7:42pm

B0jangles wrote: »

Can we agree that direct quotes from Mr. Trumps twitter account and from his recorded speeches and statements suggest that he is completely out of his depth when it comes to actual politics?

Agreed I dislike Hillary quite intensely and think her Hawkishness and strongly pro-Israeli stance makes her dangerous compared to Trumps isolationism I don't think its a good idea to push NATO all the way to Russia and it gets airbrushed out by many of the Eastern European countries that have direct issues with Russia have corrupt authoritarian strong men in charge and they treat their Russian minorities like sh-t. I think the way Hillary would respond to a flair up like the 2008 war over South Ossetia would be a lot more dangerous than Trumps tolerance of Russia, Putin isn't a nice man but he tends to only assert his influence in areas that have a large ethnic Russian population or "internally"

This being said, everytime I think he is making a metaphorical point I find out he literally means it :eek: he needs somebody behind the throne to keep him on a tight leash.

Billy86 wrote: »

I'm reading it and I'm a bit confused as to what point you are trying to make.

She labeled something as False where there is on the record interviews that prove this is not the case, she is aware of this but doesn't correct her article, how is this not lying to suit an agenda?

Billy86 · 14-08-2016 8:08pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Agreed I dislike Hillary quite intensely and think her Hawkishness and strongly pro-Israeli stance makes her dangerous compared to Trumps isolationism I don't think its a good idea to push NATO all the way to Russia and it gets airbrushed out by many of the Eastern European countries that have direct issues with Russia have corrupt authoritarian strong men in charge and they treat their Russian minorities like sh-t. I think the way Hillary would respond to a flair up like the 2008 war over South Ossetia would be a lot more dangerous than Trumps tolerance of Russia, Putin isn't a nice man but he tends to only assert his influence in areas that have a large ethnic Russian population or "internally"

The issue with your argument here is that Trump is not for isolationism - he is for bombing campaigns (well, "bombing the sh*t" out of chunks of the middle east, to be exact) and the torture of family members and innocents overseas. This is not isolationism.

The NATO/Russia bit would be very interesting with Trump in charge, but probably predictable given his many, many close ties with them - ties so close that he has lied about them to cover them up - brief article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-advisers-russia-ties_us_57acd474e4b007c36e4db94c .

This being said, everytime I think he is making a metaphorical point I find out he literally means it :eek: he needs somebody behind the throne to keep him on a tight leash.

That's the problem though, nobody keeps Trump on a leash. Nobody probably could. Due to his narcissistic tendencies, he appears to have little interest in listening to others if it doesn't reaffirm what he already believes. Ever since the conventions he has shown this over and over and over. He loves the spotlight too much, and as a result seems to be happier getting lots of negative press rather than getting less negative, but also less prominent coverage. It worked out great for him in the crowded house GOP primaries, but now that there are just two of them it is tanking him, badly. This is why a lot of the more ardent Trump supporters have spent much of the last while getting upset at the media for repeating what Trump has said.

She labeled something as False where there is on the record interviews that prove this is not the case, she is aware of this but doesn't correct her article, how is this not lying to suit an agenda?

Actually in regards to that quote, the article does appear to have been edited/corrected - http://www.snopes.com/emory-students-trump-graffiti/

RDM_83 again · 14-08-2016 8:44pm

Billy86 wrote: »

The issue with your argument here is that Trump is not for isolationism - he is for bombing campaigns (well, "bombing the sh*t" out of chunks of the middle east, to be exact) and the torture of family members and innocents overseas. This is not isolationism.

The NATO/Russia bit would be very interesting with Trump in charge, but probably predictable given his many, many close ties with them - ties so close that he has lied about them to cover them up - brief article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-advisers-russia-ties_us_57acd474e4b007c36e4db94c .

Every American president bombs the middle east, its what they do, and while Asad might be a monster ISIS really do need to be rolled back because what they are is something worse both for us Europeans geopolitically and morally.
I don't care that he might be friendly enough with some Russian Oligarchs, plenty of those in power are, Boris Berezovsky before his death was highly influencial for example.
Whats important is that he doesn't seem likely to escalate conflicts that have the potential to spiral out of control and even on a more limited scale would be harmful to the EU because of being tied to always backing NATO and supporting rather dubious national leaders and being hypocritically against letting minorities split and form their own states even though the west did exactly that in Kosovo.

He talks about torture and such stuff, but we have a Democratic President that orders extra Judicial drone strikes on American citizens.

Billy86 wrote: »

That's the problem though, nobody keeps Trump on a leash. Nobody probably could. Due to his narcissistic tendencies, he appears to have little interest in listening to others if it doesn't reaffirm what he already believes. Ever since the conventions he has shown this over and over and over. He loves the spotlight too much, and as a result seems to be happier getting lots of negative press rather than getting less negative, but also less prominent coverage. It worked out great for him in the crowded house GOP primaries, but now that there are just two of them it is tanking him, badly. This is why a lot of the more ardent Trump supporters have spent much of the last while getting upset at the media for repeating what Trump has said.

Agreed

Capt'n Midnight · 14-08-2016 8:47pm

All you need to know about Snopes https://xkcd.com/250/

KingBrian2 · 14-08-2016 9:31pm

Another controversy this time for Hillary Clinton the father of the terrorist who killed people in Orlando was on stage and interviewed by CNN. Once again it shows Clinton has support amongst the many dangerous enemies of America. The same people who ignited a Jihad across the Arab world pitting Christians, Shi'ites and Sunni's against each other in Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan & Libya. The same terrorists that made previously peaceful societies Syria and Egypt the scenes of horrible atrocities.

Christy42 · 14-08-2016 9:34pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Every American president bombs the middle east, its what they do, and while Asad might be a monster ISIS really do need to be rolled back because what they are is something worse both for us Europeans geopolitically and morally.
I don't care that he might be friendly enough with some Russian Oligarchs, plenty of those in power are, Boris Berezovsky before his death was highly influencial for example.
Whats important is that he doesn't seem likely to escalate conflicts that have the potential to spiral out of control and even on a more limited scale would be harmful to the EU because of being tied to always backing NATO and supporting rather dubious national leaders and being hypocritically against letting minorities split and form their own states even though the west did exactly that in Kosovo.

He talks about torture and such stuff, but we have a Democratic President that orders extra Judicial drone strikes on American citizens.

Agreed

So you agree he is not isolationist in terms of military action?

This point comes up time and time again and I want it quashed.

Renegade Mechanic · 14-08-2016 9:43pm

Look at the end of the day, if Hillary was genuine in her horse **** about "making the elite pay their share", the elite wouldn't be ****ing backing her....

At least Trump is telling the truth when he doesn't say he's going to make their lives harder by taxing them more - in fact he outright says they'll be left alone. But they have all the money they'll ever need. What they want more of now is control. Not only is Hillary talking through her arse about "making them pay" (you have to be a moron to believe that. Just look what happened to Socialist Sanders, who actually would have made the elite's lives harder...) she will be the one leading to their huge increases in control.

Once again, if Hillary was going to make them pay, they would not back her. It does not matter what Donald Gob does. As long as crowds like Goldman Sachs and Saudi Arabia (and just way too many more on that level to list, but not common plebs like me or you - we don't actually matter..) hate him, I will like the ****. As long as they like Hillary, I'll hate her.

CMOTDibbler · 14-08-2016 9:44pm

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Another controversy this time for Hillary Clinton the father of the terrorist who killed people in Orlando was on stage and interviewed by CNN. Once again it shows Clinton has support amongst the many dangerous enemies of America. The same people who ignited a Jihad across the Arab world pitting Christians, Shi'ites and Sunni's against each other in Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan & Libya. The same terrorists that made previously peaceful societies Syria and Egypt the scenes of horrible atrocities.

What now?

This serious? If so I suppose it ties in with Trump's idea of bombing the families of terrorists. Pity he isn't president right now or he could have got two birds with the one stone.

Billy86 · 15-08-2016 12:25am

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

What now?

This serious? If so I suppose it ties in with Trump's idea of bombing the families of terrorists. Pity he isn't president right now or he could have got two birds with the one stone.

Actually, the Clinton even commented on it...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/orlando-gunman-father-clinton/

Seddique Mateen, who said he was a Democrat, showed WPTV a sign he had made in support of Clinton, highlighting that he believes she is good for national security and citing gun control laws. Mateen told the reporter that he wants the U.S. to be a safer place.

A Clinton aide said: "The rally was a 3,000-person, open-door event for the public. This individual wasn't invited as a guest and the campaign was unaware of his attendance until after the event."

Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill later issued a statement saying, "Hillary Clinton disagrees with his views and disavows his support."

Now I do hope Brian can give us a link to where he was on stage and interviewed, could be interesting.

Billy86 · 15-08-2016 12:30am

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Once again, if Hillary was going to make them pay, they would not back her. It does not matter what Donald Gob does. As long as crowds like Goldman Sachs and Saudi Arabia (and just way too many more on that level to list, but not common plebs like me or you - we don't actually matter..) hate him, I will like the ****. As long as they like Hillary, I'll hate her.

Saudi Arabia don't hate him, they're just not happy about how he trying to claim Hillary Clinton, the GOP establishment, etc are in their pockets due to taking money from them, when Donald Trump has done the exact same.

https://twitter.com/Alwaleed_Talal/status/692790423010566144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/06/15/fox-overlooks-trump-s-middle-east-business-ventures-while-hyping-his-clinton-foundation-criticism/210974

Quartz: “Wealthy Muslims Helped Donald Trump Build His Empire,” Including Via Deals With Saudis And Qataris. A December 7 Quartz article detailed “some of the more prominent deals and partnerships with Muslim individuals, governments, and companies that have buoyed the Trump brand over the years.” These business ventures involve Qatar Airways, which has had a “‘corporate campus’ in the Trump Tower … since at least 2008;” two Saudi princes who live in Trump Tower; Saudi Prince Alwaleed, who took “majority control of New York’s Plaza hotel, [which gave] Trump ‘more breathing room with bank creditors’” and purchased Trump’s $18 million yacht; the Trump International Golf Club in Dubai; and Trump Home partnerships in “Kuwait, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.” Quartz later reported that regional retailer Lifestyle stopped selling Trump Home products in its stores in Kuwait, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other countries following Trump’s anti-Muslim comments. [Quartz, 12/7/15; 12/9/15]

CBS News: “Trump Has Been Partnering With Arab Investors For Years” And Is “Actively Looking” At Business Opportunities In “Abu Dhabi, Qatar And Saudi Arabia.” CBS News reported that there is a “Trump Tower complex in Baku, Azerbaijan, and a resort under construction in Bali, Indonesia, to be managed as a Trump-branded property.” The article also quoted Ivanka Trump saying “that in addition to Dubai, the Trump Organization was actively looking ‘at multiple business opportunities’ in Abu Dhabi, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.” [CBS News, 12/9/15]

Donald Trump

Comments